But seriously, an gnostic athiest does not make a claim that he does not know if god exists. he makes the claim that god does not exist. i think that requires proof. I leave the option open for a god but don't believe it likely. but to date I have not found any thing compelling about the universe spawning from a singularity with no source. I think all evidence points to a big bang but what the source of that big bang is as close to magic as one can get. At this point it defies the laws of physics. Energy can not be created or destroyed by natural means. So that energy has always existed??? well always existing with no source still blows my mind.

Of course a god that can creat a universe is just as much of a tall tale as well. The genesis of the universe is where I hold some possible belief that there might be a creator. If science comes up with a plausible explanation I might change my tune.

If you're not talking about absolute definitive proof, the fact of the matter is that the position 'god doesn't exist' has evidence that is similar to the evidence you'd cite for 'unicorns do not exist'. a) Stories to suggest the legendary nature of such entities b) conflicting descriptions that can in no way be corroborated in reality (as no observation of any kind is made of these entites that cannot be explained by other, known to exist and/or be real explanations) c) complete lack of evidence to suggest the positive assertion that said entity exists.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

I am sorry although I agree with you that the religious have a burden for explaining gods existence because they are making an incredible claim, I believe an atheist is making an equally incredible claim. Both require proof.

Agnostics are the only ones who are not making a Gnostic claim.

The atheist says there is no god (with no proof)the theist says there is a god (with no proof)

The atheist claims that the universe came from nothing or rather has always existed in some form (incredible)

The theist says that god has alway been and created the universe (incredible)

I claim, I simply do not know I am the only one who does not have a burden of proof.

As is so common, you are severely mistaken as to what it means to be an atheist. Atheist DOES NOT mean saying, "There is no God". On the contrary, it is merely a lack of belief in a god or gods (like lacking belief in unicorns for fairies). That is all - period. Any other claim regarding the universe has nothing to do with atheism!

There are four possibilities:

1. Gnostic Theist - one who claims to know there is a god, and has belief2. Agnostic Theist - one who does not claim to know, but has belief3. Gnostic Atheist - one who claims to know there is no god, and has no belief4. Agnostic Atheist - one who does not claim to know, and has no belief

Gnosticism has to do with knowledge (or claims to knowledge) and Theism/Atheism has to do with belief in a god or gods. They are not mutually exclusive, and in fact exist together - side by side.

So, your claims as to what you think atheists claim is quite mistaken.

As I'm sure others will ask:What would constitute proof of the non-existent?

"An eccentric philosophy professor gave a one question finalexam after an entire semester dealing with a broad array oftopics.

The class was already seated and ready to go when theprofessor picked up his chair, plopped it on his desk andwrote on the board: "Using everything we have learned thissemester, prove that this chair does not exist."

Fingers flew, erasers erased, notebooks were filled in furiousfashion. Some students wrote over 30 pages in one hourattempting to refute the existence of the chair.

One member of the class however, was up and finished inless than a minute.

Weeks later when the grades were posted, the rest of thegroup wondered how he could have gotten an A when he hadbarely written anything at all.

They found his answer consisted of two words: "What chair?""-Urban Legend

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Vishnu is a religious claim like god I can not deny him but I am pretty convinced that his description is unreliable even if vishnu exists

Atlantis, did a land with an advanced culture by the standards of the time exist and sink? Possibly.

The standards of evidence are the same. And 'leaving yourself open' is to try changing the subject. Being "open" implies you don't have a belief (likely b/c you haven't been provided evidence that is sufficient) which would make you an "A-unicornist", an "A-Santa-Clausist", etc.

Energy can not be created or destroyed by natural means. So that energy has always existed??? well always existing with no source still blows my mind.

Of course a god that can creat a universe is just as much of a tall tale as well. The genesis of the universe is where I hold some possible belief that there might be a creator. If science comes up with a plausible explanation I might change my tune.

My analogy speaks of an idea of the existence of a so-called "atheist" based on the principle that he can prove scientifically that there is no God needed to create all things by duplicating creating things in a scientific way.

Saying that one lacks belief in a supernatural "creator" of some kind does not speak to anything else. It is not an insistence that the universe could have been created scientifically (whatever that means). Indeed, it isn't even an admission that the universe had to have been created at all; quite the contrary, lack of belief in deities is most often associated with lack of belief that the universe was created.

If the universe wasnt created, kindly explain how it came to be. Was it made? From what? How? By who? or by what? Thanks

One should prove, that there is such a thing as an "atheist" not just a person CLAIMING to be an Atheist but cant prove it.---If theres such a thing or person as an "atheist", this person should be able to scientifically recreate or re-manifest the Universe, including Earth, and all the living and non-living within it (including humans with intelligence, society and civilization). This would prove that everything is scientifically viable, feasible and can be reproduced anytime through scientific knowledge and that no God made it.

For there to be such a thing as an atheist, there need only be a person who rejects the belief that there are gods. That person need not be right about it. Otherwise you are saying that in order to be a xian you must prove the god of the bible actually exists.

If Atheism is a rejection of the belief in the existence of a god, then this is same with saying Monotheist is 99.99% Atheist coz he doesnt believe the 99.99% of the number of known gods exists.

Pardon me for using the word "Create", its not out of any stance "Creationist or otherwise".Create means to produce something out of nothing.

Can you prove there was once "nothing"? Perhaps something has always existed, and merely transformed into our universe at the big bang.

BTW, atheists don't have any burden of proof upon their stance. We simply don't yet find any compelling evidence for gods, yours or otherwise. We don't have to have all the answers to how the universe formed, or the causal events that brought it about to reject claims of creation, because no evidence has been put forth that it is a creation. And, frankly, science has discovered so many wonderous things, previously attributed to gods, that turned out to have natural physical explanations, I can't hold out much hope that gods are necearry for the remaining mysteries of the universe.

Welcome to the fray!

You asked me if i could prove there was "nothing" then you said there Perhaps was "something", what is that "something"?

If a person is negating an idea that is well known and accepted, the burden of proof is on the negative. It is called the burden of accusation.Before a person negates an idea he must have a solid basis on his negation of that idea. Lack of Physical proof doesnt count, specially for an idea which isnt physical.

As you said, Science has "Discovered" many things. It means it already existed before Science "Found Out" about it.

AnalogyA few days ago, i didnt know you exist. Did i believe you exist? No, coz i didnt know you exist. But do you exist a few days ago? Yes. Put Simply, your non-belief doesnt mean God doesnt exist. On your side, he may or may not exist, you just dont believe that he does. Is it right?

Thanks for the Welcome

Others will be answered by the next hour. Its Lunchtime, lets eat. Even if you dont believe i have food here coz you dont have physical evidence that I do

Mine says, God created the Universe, if one says He Didnt, then make one same Universe out of your science.

Fascinating!

I believe that Atum created humanity from his tears. I take it that you can prove that that did not happen? If not, I presume you will have no problem stating for the record that "it is possible that Atum exists, and his tears created humanity"?

One should prove, that there is such a thing as an "atheist" not just a person CLAIMING to be an Atheist but cant prove it.---If theres such a thing or person as an "atheist", this person should be able to scientifically recreate or re-manifest the Universe, including Earth, and all the living and non-living within it (including humans with intelligence, society and civilization). This would prove that everything is scientifically viable, feasible and can be reproduced anytime through scientific knowledge and that no God made it.

OwnLogic, welcome to WWGHA Forum. Please make sure to learn how to use the quote function when replying to others. You just need to copy/paste the "quote author" section, with the brackets, for each person you are responding to. You can then enclose their text by placing the "/quote" (with brackets) function at the end of each quotation. After that, just type your response.

Now, onto your response to my OP. Do you understand what "burden of proof" is? The argument you raised above is called the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. Atheism is simply a LACK OF BELIEF if god or gods - nothing more. It is not a positive statement. Furthermore, the burden of proof rests on he who makes the claim (like those who said lightening came from Zeus before we knew better).

The default position is not belief, but disbelief until sufficient evidence has been presented. Well, we have been presented with no sufficient evidence for God. As an example, do you believe in Unicorns? If not, why not? Chances are, you have not been presented with sufficient evidence. Here's another example - this is a paraphrased story from another one of our members here (and I think it fits quite nicely here).

Say you and two friends (Bob and Jim) are walking down a foreign alleyway when you come upon a big closed cardboard box, one which none of you have ever seen before. You ask each of your friends what they think is inside the box. Bob says, "I don't know" but Jim says, "There is a Unicorn in there!" When you ask Jim how he thinks he knows this he says, "I just have faith." Which one of your friend's responses is the more reasonable position?

Disbelieving a claim until sound evidence is presented is the default position for fact finding b/c it is the most reliable. So too, with your God example. The burden of proof lies with you making the claim (like Jim needs to show how he knows a Unicorn is in the box).

Does this make sense why your response is nonsensical? We don't believe every claim FIRST and then try to support our belief. That is quite backwards. Instead, we disbelieve until the evidence allows for tentative acceptance.

---Before, people believed Earth was flat, but then it wasnt so as was mentioned in the Bible about the curvature or circle of the earth.

Actually, you are quite mistaken here. The people who wrote the bible quite clearly believed that the earth was a flat circular disk shaped living space, with "the heavens" spread out over it like a tent (Isaiah 40, etc). In fact the Hebrew word Chug means circle and never implies a sphere. In fact, the terms "circle of the earth" and "the ends of the earth" were already in use by flat-earth believing Mesopotamians long before Isaiah was written. The verses in Isaiah 42 and 44 indicate a "pounding out" (toward flatness) of the earth by God at the alleged creation. This is b/c the ancients were living in a pre-scientific era and did not know about cosmology. This is why the writers of Isaiah (40, and Job 38, etc) talk about "from one end of the earth even to the other end..." (found also in Mesopotamian writings) or "take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it". See Job 11 also, "[God's] measure is longer than the earth..." and Job 38, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth. On what were it's bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone?"

If you compare these writings with other ancient writings of the time, it is quite clear that the Jews believed the earth is flat.

Now some people say theres No God then maybe theyre just as wrong again.

Some people use the scientific method to find evidence, but actually what they find is not evidence but more questions.

Questions are what drives science. In fact, it's the honest answer "I don't know" that drives science to go investigate, research, study, and find things out (without assuming an answer in advance of the evidence). Science follows the evidence instead of leading it (as religious belief so often does).

Last, people thought the earth was flat, just as they thought lightening came from the god Zeus and storms came from the god Poseidon. They were wrong because they practiced being gullible and didn't have enough information. Could this be the same for God belief? Many of us think so. I look forward to your response.

My proof of God's existence is his Creation. As the Bible stated, every creation speaks or shows the Existence of a Creator.As much as a House shows the existence of a House Builder, a Car of a Car Maker, etc.

Now if one says, the Creator doesnt exist and everything is just Science, then he has the burden of proof to show how Science can make it happen. Science "constructs" can be reproduced, so if the universe was a Science Construct, then reproduce it please, by all means.

My analogy speaks of an idea of the existence of a so-called "atheist" based on the principle that he can prove scientifically that there is no God needed to create all things by duplicating creating things in a scientific way.

Meaning if one wants to claim he doesnt believe in a Creator then prove that the Universe can be scientifically manifested.

With all due respect Anfauglir, but i think you have a Wrong Analogy.

Your analogy speaks of a television's existence based on my creating it.

Mine says, God created the Universe, if one says He Didnt, then make one same Universe out of your science.

But this is another fallacy of burden shifting. Do you just believe everything you hear until someone proves you wrong? If you actually practiced this in your life you would likely be ripped off quite easily. Anyone could swindle you out of your money with this method b/c it is gullible. Do you see the flaw in trying to use this method? It is backwards, and also hypocritical because we don't live our lives this way at all (believing before sufficient evidence comes in). I would certainly hope you do not do this in daily life, do you? The time to believe a claim is after sufficient evidence has been presented (just like with Jim and his claim about the Unicorn) not before. Do you see?

Is it really backwards? Some thinks, "To See is to Believe"I say it works the other way around in reality, "believe first and you will see".

Scientific research has a purpose. This purpose is the "Belief". Example, a cure for cancer.Scientists are faced with the dilemma that cancer cant be cured, They Believed there is a cure, then they research for a cure.

A guy flew a kite believing there is a use for that lightning and that it may be controlled and used.A guy wanted to harness atomic fusion, he believed he can so he studied it and he was able to come up with a fusion reactor.

If you would delve into business, wouldnt you believe first that you will earn in that field before you invest in it? Specially if you are the pioneer of that business.

The bible did say no one has seen God. And then asks everyone to believe in him. Then promised that you will see.

Its like marriage, a girl believes a guy would give him a good life so she marries him. Would she marry him if she didnt believe in him? What do you think?

Mine says, God created the Universe, if one says He Didnt, then make one same Universe out of your science.

Fascinating!

I believe that Atum created humanity from his tears. I take it that you can prove that that did not happen? If not, I presume you will have no problem stating for the record that "it is possible that Atum exists, and his tears created humanity"?

Does this mean you believe Atum is your Creator God?

Not a very good dodge there. Can you prove that Atum did NOT create humanity from his tears? If not, you must accept that it COULD be true, don't you? Using the criteria you have been arguing against an atheistic position?

OwnLogic, you said that your "proof of God's existence is his creation." What is your proof of god's creation? In other words, what created god? Did god just poof himself into existence out of nothing? Or was god always there, made of nothing, hanging out in the nothing before he started creating something...out of nothing?

You know where this is going. If god did not need a sentient creator, why does the universe need one?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

AnalogyLong ago, people don’t believe in Atoms, for there is no such word and no evidence of its existence, yet atoms do exist.

This is not a useful analogy to justify a belief in a deity.

The beliefs in Gods are far more elaborate and pervasive in their instructions to us than the mere postulation of atoms.The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Book of Mormon, and many other holy books prescribe how we should live and think - in GREAT DETAIL and in GREAT CONFLICT with each other, despite clear evidence that most of them stole ideas from those that predated them and other pagan myths.

All these books contain what should be historical facts that can be checked out - but much of it turns out to be fabricated.The Christian Bible tells us that prayers will be answered and that miracles will happen as signs of the faith of Christians - but careful studies show that prayers are in fact not answered, and miracles don't stand up to scrutiny, usually revealing deliberate fakery or delusion.

Religious Faith is a very big deal - with lots of detail - most of which can be shown through science and reason to be wrong or immoral.

Whereas in the case of belief in atoms - those predictions have been thoroughly checked out and demonstrated not only to be true, but repeatable and extremely useful.

Pardon me for using the word "Create", its not out of any stance "Creationist or otherwise".Create means to produce something out of nothing.

Can you prove there was once "nothing"? Perhaps something has always existed, and merely transformed into our universe at the big bang.

BTW, atheists don't have any burden of proof upon their stance. We simply don't yet find any compelling evidence for gods, yours or otherwise. We don't have to have all the answers to how the universe formed, or the causal events that brought it about to reject claims of creation, because no evidence has been put forth that it is a creation. And, frankly, science has discovered so many wonderous things, previously attributed to gods, that turned out to have natural physical explanations, I can't hold out much hope that gods are necearry for the remaining mysteries of the universe.

Welcome to the fray!

You asked me if i could prove there was "nothing" then you said there Perhaps was "something", what is that "something"?

The possibilities are endless, and I do not pretend to know. Therein lies the difference between you and I. You do pretend to know. But you really do not know.

Quote

If a person is negating an idea that is well known and accepted, the burden of proof is on the negative. It is called the burden of accusation.Before a person negates an idea he must have a solid basis on his negation of that idea. Lack of Physical proof doesnt count, specially for an idea which isnt physical.

Incorrect. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You have no evidence to support your claims, so I simply say to you "Prove it."

I've yet to encounter a theist that can.

Quote

As you said, Science has "Discovered" many things. It means it already existed before Science "Found Out" about it.

AnalogyA few days ago, i didnt know you exist. Did i believe you exist? No, coz i didnt know you exist. But do you exist a few days ago? Yes. Put Simply, your non-belief doesnt mean God doesnt exist. On your side, he may or may not exist, you just dont believe that he does. Is it right?

Correct. I don't have sufficient evidence to convince me that gods of any type exist. Further, would such evidence be presented to me, I would in fact change my stance on the subject, much like you have about my existance.

As should be obvious, the atheist cannot prove there are no gods, just as you cannot prove there aren't invisible pink unicorns living on the road in front of your house. Yet, you carry on your daily life as if there weren't. It's the same for me and your god.

My proof of God's existence is his Creation. As the Bible stated, every creation speaks or shows the Existence of a Creator.As much as a House shows the existence of a House Builder, a Car of a Car Maker, etc.

So basically, you're telling us that you believe what the bible says because the bible says so. In other words, you've assumed your position in advance. Sound about right? How about lightening and thunder? Does lightening need a "lighteninger" and thunder a "thunderer"? Your first sentence commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. It says, "My proof of God is God".

FAIL!

We have demonstrable examples of houses and cars being built by people. We have exactly NO examples of your Yahweh god doing anything.

Now if one says, the Creator doesnt exist and everything is just Science, then he has the burden of proof to show how Science can make it happen. Science "constructs" can be reproduced, so if the universe was a Science Construct, then reproduce it please, by all means.

This is, once again, your fallacious Straw Man argument. Do you know what that is? None of us has said "there is no God" (although I have said Yahweh most certainly does not exist - but that is another debate). We have said that all of the arguments given for a god have thus far failed. Therefore, we see no reason for accepting the claim (just like we don't believe in Unicorns). Again, we did NOT make a positive claim. So you are attacking an argument we have not made.

Second, you are attacking another argument we have not made by thinking we have said, "It's all just science". WTF? Where do you people come up with this shit? Do you even know what science is? Have you taken even ONE science course? It doesn't seem so. It seems you are quite ignorant. You are putting words in our mouth, instead of actually trying to understand our position. How arrogant!

Meaning if one wants to claim he doesnt believe in a Creator then prove that the Universe can be scientifically manifested.

This is called the fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. If you claim that Unicorns exist and I don't believe you (say b/c you haven't given good evidence or reason for it), the burden of proof is on you - not me. The default position is to disbelieve a claim until sufficient evidence has been provided - not the other way around.

If I don't believe your claim to a God, I am not (by default) required to give some other explanation. Do you have to provide another explanation for every wacky claim people make up? This is exactly how it works with your God claim. The burden of proof is on you, not me. The answer "I don't know and neither do you" is more than sufficient.

Is it really backwards? Some thinks, "To See is to Believe"I say it works the other way around in reality, "believe first and you will see".

Scientific research has a purpose. This purpose is the "Belief". Example, a cure for cancer.Scientists are faced with the dilemma that cancer cant be cured, They Believed there is a cure, then they research for a cure.

A guy flew a kite believing there is a use for that lightning and that it may be controlled and used.A guy wanted to harness atomic fusion, he believed he can so he studied it and he was able to come up with a fusion reactor.

If you would delve into business, wouldnt you believe first that you will earn in that field before you invest in it? Specially if you are the pioneer of that business.

The bible did say no one has seen God. And then asks everyone to believe in him. Then promised that you will see.

Its like marriage, a girl believes a guy would give him a good life so she marries him. Would she marry him if she didnt believe in him? What do you think?

Ignorance, ignorance, ignorance.

1. Do you actually think that in order for something to be real you have to 'believe' in it first? What magic! So how about you demonstrate that and just "believe" you are sitting in my living room right now so we can have this conversation face to face. Or how about you "believe" yourself into Unicorns existing? I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way sir. Belief is not a choice. One must be convinced (by either good evidence or bad).

2. The purpose of scientific research is NOTHING LIKE what you claim. Again, you show how ignorant you are. When scientists search for a cure (listen carefully now) THEY DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CURE! "Believing there is" a cure is completely different from thinking there might be one. You need to go take some science classes and come back when you know WTF you're talking about.

3. You keep using this word "believe", as any person who has a hypothesis about something is just as COMMITTED to it as you are to the bible. NOPE! You are dead wrong. Tentative trust (that can very easily be changed) is nothing like your belief in the bible (because that cannot be easily changed). You are wholly and firmly committed to it, and that is opposite of what science does.

4. Regarding starting a business, I run 3 businesses. I didn't "believe" any of them were GOING to be successful. I started with an hypothesis and then tested it. Are you testing the bible uncritically as I do my businesses? I think not. If one of my businesses fails in it's business model (and it's happened before) I will stop supporting it. Will you do the same with the bible?

5. Regarding marriage, you have given another false analogy. Marriages are DEMONSTRABLE and if the man started showing signs that he did NOT actually love the woman, she would be able to see he was lying. Your alleged "God" thing is not demonstrable. Can you demonstrate this god as I can demonstrate my wife? [Waiting for you to get right on that] If not, then your marriage example fails miserably.

Energy can not be created or destroyed by natural means. So that energy has always existed??? well always existing with no source still blows my mind.

Of course a god that can creat a universe is just as much of a tall tale as well. The genesis of the universe is where I hold some possible belief that there might be a creator. If science comes up with a plausible explanation I might change my tune.

So the answer should be, "I don't know" - and leave it at that.

There are people who claim to have had personally spoken with a diety, seen cities shattered from the sky. I believe it is myth and legend typical of humans but there is a claim that god is real and has made himself evident.

My answer is I don't know, I lean towards god being myth of the superstitious but I can not off hand say that there is no god.

PS an atheist, at least most of the atheists here make the claim there is no god and violently defend that position many want to convert believers and they appear to be on a religious crusade to prove their point. Not that atheists simply don't believe in god, it is much more direct than that.

There are people who claim to have had personally spoken with a diety, seen cities shattered from the sky. I believe it is myth and legend typical of humans but there is a claim that god is real and has made himself evident.

My answer is I don't know, I lean towards god being myth of the superstitious but I can not off hand say that there is no god.

PS an atheist, at least most of the atheists here make the claim there is no god and violently defend that position many want to convert believers and they appear to be on a religious crusade to prove their point. Not that atheists simply don't believe in god, it is much more direct than that.

Violently? Perhaps you meant 'passionately'.

It seems that you simply have a fairly high threshold for saying 'no, that thingie doesn't exist'. As long as that threshold is applied fairly consistently I see no particular problem with your stance. If the question of the existence of god or unicorns only elicits 'I don't know' as the response, well so be it. For me, I feel like it is perfectly reasonable to say 'no, unicorns do not exist'. If a unicorn shows up I will change my damn mind. Saying 'no, that thingie doesn't exist' doesn't write your answer in some kind of eternal log that will force you to embody that answer for all of your existence. You're totally free to change your mind if you get new data to suggest you were wrong. Or hell, even if you don't get new data but just feel like your previous answer of 'no' was incorrect.

You seem to be under the impression that most of the atheists here, when they say 'no, god doesn't exist', have closed their minds entirely to change. I just don't think that's true. I think most of the atheists here are saying 'no, god doesn't exist' based on their current understanding of reality. I think most of the atheists here would readily admit that, if their current understanding of reality were to change such that it would suggest the existence of a 'god entity', then they would change their answer.

Again, it's fine if your 'I don't know' threshold is sufficiently low such that you take that position in regards to gods, unicorns, Atlantis, the fountain of youth, etc. But I'm getting the sense that you seem to think that when someone says 'no' or 'yes' to those questions that they are inherently locking themselves into that answer for all eternity. I just don't think that's true.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

There are people who claim to have had personally spoken with a diety, seen cities shattered from the sky. I believe it is myth and legend typical of humans but there is a claim that god is real and has made himself evident.

My answer is I don't know, I lean towards god being myth of the superstitious but I can not off hand say that there is no god.

PS an atheist, at least most of the atheists here make the claim there is no god and violently defend that position many want to convert believers and they appear to be on a religious crusade to prove their point. Not that atheists simply don't believe in god, it is much more direct than that.

No, it's not. You are conflating two entirely separate things and completely wrong in your assessment of what I (and others here) think. Just because someone speaks out against irrational belief systems (i.e. - religion) does not mean they believe the opposite statement (i.e. - "There is no God"). This is what you are missing.

Regarding the atheists here (myself included), can you please provide the quotation where one of us has made that exact statement? Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods - that is all - and if our society was filled with Unicorn believers who wanted to limit my freedom, force their beliefs upon me, and generally effect my life in a negative/irrational way I would protest all the same. But! It would NOT mean that I would believe the statement, "There are no unicorns" (same with the term "God"). The mere possibility of either option doesn't exclude a third option of lacking belief and promoting reason.

So, if you are leaning more toward God being superstition let me ask you two questions:

No, it's not. You are conflating two entirely separate things and completely wrong in your assessment of what I (and others here) think. Just because someone speaks out against irrational belief systems (i.e. - religion) does not mean they believe the opposite statement (i.e. - "There is no God"). This is what you are missing.

Regarding the atheists here (myself included), can you please provide the quotation where one of us has made that exact statement? Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods - that is all - and if our society was filled with Unicorn believers who wanted to limit my freedom, force their beliefs upon me, and generally effect my life in a negative/irrational way I would protest all the same. But! It would NOT mean that I would believe the statement, "There are no unicorns" (same with the term "God"). The mere possibility of either option doesn't exclude a third option of lacking belief and promoting reason.

So, if you are leaning more toward God being superstition let me ask you two questions:

1. Do you currently have knowledge of a god?

2. Do you currently hold a belief in a god?

My opinion, for what it is worth is that there are many Atheists on this site who claim with absolute certainty that there is no god. Perhaps they do so for effect, but they denegrate peoples intelligence for their belief in a diety and "passionatly" try to convert people to their way of thinking. I support their right to do so, but, I believe it is evident that they express an arrogant absolute knowledge of what is unknowable at this time.

I truely believe that Gnostic Atheist is as much a stretch as gnostic diest at this point in history and science.

1) I have no current knowledge of god. However, some have claimed to and I am not smart enough to off hand dismiss everything they say. The holes in my knowledge leave some room for the existence of a god.

2) No I do not currently believe in god, simply accept that there may be one. again I am not smart enough to say there is absolutely no god. I simply believe that god (especially the christian god) as described, seems to be a construct in keeping with the human psyche. So I believe god as described is almost certainly not there and a god/supreme intelligence who created the universe on a whim a distant possibility with almost equally unlikeliness to the universe spawining itself (both are equally unbelievable yet here I am typing on this site). I only know that I exist and the universe is really cool and I have lots of questions not likely to every be answered.

jdawg70

Ps: as for unicorns. I am not a solid believer in them but did a creature with a horn exist in history? I have not researched it at all. Seems like a strange thing to make up for no reason. Did a rare creature on the edge of extinction live at one point in human history that had one horn pointing straight out and had four legs??? Perhaps.

Again it is weird to have a mythical creature that is so powerless. I see no reason to fabricate it. Interestingly it seems to cross many cultures so I would need to research the origin of the unicorn. I Know, unicorns do not exist today or in the past several thousand years.

if it did exist was it a four legged animal that through oral traditions has been changed to a white horse like creature from a sheep the size of a deer? was there an albino deer with a freak horn that some tribe felt was significant? I don't know, it could have seeds in reality, just doubt it was magical.

Ps: as for unicorns. I am not a solid believer in them but did a creature with a horn exist in history? I have not researched it at all. Seems like a strange thing to make up for no reason. Did a rare creature on the edge of extinction live at one point in human history that had one horn pointing straight out and had four legs??? Perhaps.

Again it is weird to have a mythical creature that is so powerless. I see no reason to fabricate it. Interestingly it seems to cross many cultures so I would need to research the origin of the unicorn. I Know, unicorns do not exist today or in the past several thousand years.

if it did exist was it a four legged animal that through oral traditions has been changed to a white horse like creature from a sheep the size of a deer? was there an albino deer with a freak horn that some tribe felt was significant? I don't know, it could have seeds in reality, just doubt it was magical.

This does exemplify the problems that can be associated with words and labels. 'Unicorn' and 'creature with a horn' are not necessarily referring to the same type of entity. A rhinoceros, for example, would indeed be a 'creature with a horn', but we're pretty clearly not talking about rhinos here. The descriptors you have given as possible 'unicorns' either a) apply to a number of known existing creatures or b) describe something that is other than a 'unicorn', depending on who you are talking to and what the context is. While you and I and most everyone can certainly agree that currently there are creatures that have horns, and that there is a pretty good likelihood that there had been other creatures with horns in the past, what we're agreeing to and talking about isn't 'a mythical creature with the shape of a horse, horn on its forehead, with gifted intelligence and supernatural powers of healing'.

The relevancy here comes from the word 'god'. When someone asks 'does god exist', they, in all likelihood, have a number of characteristics in mind associated with the word 'god'. And some of those characteristics probably have no evidence to suggest truth or falsity - 'god is love'. k...that's ill-defined enough where I can just say 'I don't know' to that. Sometimes people are asking 'does god, the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving entity exist'? Some atheists here, including myself, think that with what we currently know about reality can readily say with some confidence that 'no, that being does not exist'. How about the question 'does god, the initial condition of reality, exist'? I can go with 'I don't know' as well, though I have no data or evidence to suggest the truth of that claim. I nominally go with the answer 'no' to that one as well. You don't have to - you want to go with 'I don't know' with that go for it.

If there is a more coherent definition of 'god' that you want to present, we can discuss the validity of a gnostic position in regards to his/her/its/their existence. Without any definition, then no, of course it would be illogical to take a gnostic position - there is nothing defined to take a position on! We may as well be talking about the validity of taking a gnostic position on the existence of 'Qlikaskid7849kiki-botico'.

I suggest (and I may be overstepping my bounds here) that you adopt the label ignostic atheist. That's the label I use for myself, so I'm a little biased here. But you appear to agree that, for some concepts of 'god', one can reasonably say 'no, that don't exist' (e.g. the god entity that hangs out and actively causes crap like floods and earthquakes and makes people speak in tongues and all that jazz). For other concepts of 'god', you probably will adopt 'I don't know, doesn't seem like it, but I don't know' because you would have insufficient data or evidence to make a confident distinction (e.g. the god entity that exists in some other inaccessible plane of existence that does not, in anyway, interact with our plane of existence and in principle has no effect whatsoever and is completely indistinguishable from non-existence.).

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Thanks for answering my first question, now to the second. Do you currently hold a belief in a god or gods?

I answered both questions.

No I do not believe in god. i believe he/she is a construct of the human condition. Our fear of the unknown and ability to take coincidence and give it meaning are the most likely genesis of a god figure. But just because I feel humans tend to make gods to explain coincidence and the unknown, that in and of itself does not mean that they are always wrong. Like I said I am simply open to the possibility of a god. I am 99.5123547 sure there is not a god.

jdawg70,

On the unicorn side of things... I agree with you I was errant in my definition of unicorns. Was there a horse with a horn Maybe, but I am inclined to believe that said horse if it ever existed was probably it's unique and rare nature that had people claim it's magical powers.

as for the definition of god.

I have two. First is a God who is an entity who consciously made and effort to create a universe and then observes his handiwork. Second an entity who created the universe and followed that with personal visits and interaction with his creation.

When I view many of the atheists on this site I get the impression that they openly state neither exist and belief in the such dieties is flat out wrong. If I am wrong then so be it. I will take that as a datapoint.

Let me ask all atheist members.

1) God or gods do not exist?2) God or gods are not likely to exist?3) I don't know if god or gods exist but I see no evidence.

1) God or gods do not exist?2) God or gods are not likely to exist?3) I don't know if god or gods exist but I see no evidence.

1) As described, highly unlikely. Unknowable, perhaps. Completely hands-off seems the only possibility that fits the world as it actually is.2) Same as above (that wasn't intentional BTW)3) This is the reason for my responses to #1 & 2

They're not mutually exclusive, at least not for me.

Something that recently came to my attention that I hadn't really thought about until then - theists that manage to become comfortable enough to stay here often continue to hold to their belief that deep down inside, we're all actually closet believers who are (for whatever the reason) denying god (whatever that means). For some it appears to be based on the way we respond to questions or posts about god - we do speak as if one does exist in order to facilitate the discussion. Example - it's difficult to discuss biblical accuracy with a theist if we don't begin the conversation with the implicit understanding that we agree to the premise in order to disprove it, or to demonstrate why we don't agree with whatever point the theist is trying to make.

It can be confusing to a theist to read "yes but God allows children to starve in Africa, so where's the compassion?" and still remembering that we are arguing that this is supporting our belief that god doesn't exist (at least not the one they are talking about - lots of SPAG here). Instead, it gets throw back at us as some sort of proof that we really do believe and we're apparently just having a temper tantrum or something.

I can see how it reads a bit differently than it may be intended. It's very difficult to discuss this topic with a theist without taking a hard line position - they tend to see any allowances as admission of god's existence rather than a tool to facilitate the discussion. I don't think you're likely to find many here who will state categorically that no god is possible - we're not generally quite that arrogant.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

No I do not believe in god. i believe he/she is a construct of the human condition. Our fear of the unknown and ability to take coincidence and give it meaning are the most likely genesis of a god figure. But just because I feel humans tend to make gods to explain coincidence and the unknown, that in and of itself does not mean that they are always wrong. Like I said I am simply open to the possibility of a god. I am 99.5123547 sure there is not a god.

We agree, and you answered both of my questions in the negative (thank you btw). What you have just described is an agnostic atheist.

1. Agnostic - Someone know does not claim knowledge of a god2. Atheist - Someone who does not hold a belief (or lacks belief) in a god

These terms co-exist and answer two separate questions, one regarding knowledge and one regarding belief.

I don't believe in any beings with supernatural or magical powers. No gods, witches, chupacabras, baka, ghosts, spirits, demons, werewolves or mermaids. No psychics. No life after death, ESP or aliens abducting people out of their beds. None have ever been shown to be real, after thousands of years of investigating.

It would be interesting, even wonderful, if someone could someday provide evidence or proof of any of those things. When they do, I will change my mind.

On the other hand, in just a few hundred years after the invention of the microscope, germs were discovered, identified as the cause of disease, and methods developed to prevent or cure diseases caused by germs. I find it amusing that even people who pray to gods, and say they believe in the supernatural-- without any scientific evidence-- wash their hands before they eat.

Scientific research has a purpose. This purpose is the "Belief". Example, a cure for cancer.Scientists are faced with the dilemma that cancer cant be cured, They Believed there is a cure, then they research for a cure.

A guy wanted to harness atomic fusion, he believed he can so he studied it and he was able to come up with a fusion reactor.

No one has developed a self-sustaining fusion reactor. Current projections are that it will take 20-50 more years if it is even possible. And since the projections made back in the 1970s were for self-sustaining fusion reactors by now, it is becoming questionable as to whether it is even possible. Especially since the 1 second mark had been touted as the breakthrough point but it was already passed and still no self-sustaining fusion reactor.

Its like marriage, a girl believes a guy would give him a good life so she marries him. Would she marry him if she didnt believe in him? What do you think?

Like the business example, you are wrong. There are many marriages where one spouse believes the other will be a good mate but they end up in an abusive marriage, or divorced, or one (or both) ends up dead.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

1) God or gods do not exist?2) God or gods are not likely to exist?3) I don't know if god or gods exist but I see no evidence.

I'm going to be slightly annoying and answer with A,B & C.A) a benevolent god does not exist - there is strong evidence for this as well as it being a logical conclusion.B) an indifferent god might exist - I have no clue either way but if it does then (appropriately for an indifferent being) it has no interaction with us.C) a malevolent god could very well exist - one could say there is even some evidence/logic for such a being - I do hope it does not exist for reasons I don't want to repeat at this time.

So, I'm a semi-gnostic atheist.

Logged

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

Hi guys, its been a while since Ive been online, now I see alot of replies to my replies to replies on my replies to my reply to the question in this thread

Let me discuss the things I said one by one Per Topic in accordance to your replies, so I wont need to bore your eyes with alot of quotes and unquotes.

Here we go:

Believe First and You Will See

Belief is not what others think as non-negotiable or unchangeable. It can be changed in a slight of a moment, specially when proven wrong.

Believe First...In business, before you do a certain business, there are alot of belief involved, you believe first you can do it, you believe in your plan, you believe in your partners, you believe you will earn, why? Because you havent started yet. If one says he has a business he doesnt believe in, he is probably making a false claim, why? because you wont do it if you dont believe you can. So everything starts with belief in that aspect.

...then You will SeeAfter you believe you can, then you act on it. After you act, thats when the results come up. Then You See the results of the business.

Thought:If you dont believe you can, then you cant coz you wont.

Example: My work is to offer people a way to earn using my business system. If I tell a person, I can make you earn $600 a day with my system, if he believes what i say then he partners up with me and he earns.

To the guy who said this kind of business run to the ground, the business im doing is running with thousands of micro-franchises in 11 countries worldwide and is earning a few Billion a year for 7 years, i earn a few hundred grand from it within just a year. Its a Believe first and you will see business. Believe you can, believe the system, do everything according to the system, then afterwards you will see results. Its looks like the "Believe God's words Do it and you will get Salvation" gig right?

Most people say, your systems looks good but sounds too good to be true (Skeptics). Yes it does, but thats how it works, not the other way around. Doubting and Skepticism is Normal. You doubt you can or you doubt the system. But no person became a businessman by being skeptic or doubtful over everything. Why? Because a True Skeptic wont act on it unless he see something solid, like a bunch of cash coming out of your pockets. And no one earns anything by purely doubting everything.

If theres a job like that and it pays millions for doing "doubting" tell me lets doubt it every minute so we will get rich quick

Anyways, Thats the reason why I say there are no real Atheists, simply Skeptics as to whether a god exists or not. This being based on the replies i got from you guys like the "i dont know" stand and the "Unicorn" stand.

If Im not mistaken, Unicorn means Single Horn, right? If so then yes I believe such an animal exists. Others have just come to the conclusion that unicorn means horses with a horn. But it is something that resembles or looks like a horse according to the definition of the legends. It might well be a rhino, depending on the idea of the guy who saw it first. Its like Santa on a Christmas eve, you saw him putting gifts under your tree when you were a kid so you say there is a Santa. Some others didnt see so they say no there is none. The fact is there is one who looks or resemble Santa who put gift under your tree. The Main Question is; Does he exist? YES that guy who put that gift exists, whatever you might call him.

As For GodSome say he exists, some say maybe he exists, some say i dont know, some say maybe not, some say no. The reason for religion is the belief in a god or diety, and this gives people the idea of good and bad, even the American constitution or any country's constitution has a religious basis at some point. The idea states that law abiding is good, non-law abiding is bad. Good has benefits and bad has punishments. Its the old Good and Evil battle simplified.

Skepticism over God's existence is acceptable at certain terms, but saying "No, God Doesnt Exist" bears the question of "Why do you do good and why you dont do bad?" or "Why do you keep on the standards that are standardized under the laws directly connected to the belief in the entity you dont believe?"

Without the belief in a God or in a Diety, people wont be the same. Everything would probably be in chaos. I myself would have killed so many people who were gravely at fault with me, if i didnt believe that there is unbearable punishment waiting for me if i do that besides imprisonment, prison is bearable. How Come? Coz there would be no difference between good and bad, one would be doing only acts of self preservation. There wont be any morals, like not doing to your kid what you do to your wife at night.

Now there may be some who may say that theres alot of people who says they believe in God but doesnt practice morality, Yes there are, but one is not the whole.

Proof of GodMy proof of God is His Creations, i just mentioned the Bible as a reference.

One gave an example of lightning and thunder, in need of a lightninger or thunderer? No just a Creator Creator of a fully functional Universe that may contain substancial lightning and thunder. (Batteries not included) LOL

Its like a clock maker, he made a clock, its like you asking, "What about the tik-tak of the clock? Does it need a tik-tak-er? No just a Clock maker.

About the cure for Cancer, there is already, I had 5 cancer testimonials already under my account, 1 brain, 1 bone, 2 colon, 1 kidney. It earned me a few grand.

And about the Fusion,I said the guy "was able to come up with a fusion reactor". I wonder where you get the word "Self-Sustaining", I didnt say that.Anyways, fusion reactors now can already be made at home, you can make one if you want.A Kid did: Here's The Link

About the verses in the bible that someone has Seen GodHave you read it really that it was really God they saw? Or was it just the "words" of the "person who allegedly saw"?How was it said? Was it said in a manner of Teaching, or was it said in a manner of Expression?What did that person actually see?

Some people read verses then conclude, Please read the context.

About the marriage, thanks for affirming what i said Mr. Samothec. The spouse "Believes" that the one he or she will marry is a good partner. Thats the point, believe first then you will see. If you dont believe, then you wont marry the person, therefore you wont see if he or she is worth marrying. Right?

You dont really mean to use the term Demonstrable, maybe what you mean to use is Tangible. You need Tangible proof.

Either way, Whether it Tangibility or Demonstrability that is your issue, both cant be done with "Future", coz what we always experience is a "Now" and the "Past".

Try thinking of this scenario:

Now is a Proof of the Past, and the proof of Now's Existence is Now. Its like a -what you called- "Fallacy of circular reasoning".

If you wont believe the Existence of Now, because it is a fallacy to have the Now as a proof of the Existence of Now, then Now dont Exist in your belief.

If the existence of Now is the proof of the existence of the Past and you dont believe that the Now Exist due to Fallacious Circular reasoning, then how would you believe in the Existence of the Past?

It follows then that if you dont believe in the "Past" coz its Existence is based on a Non-Existent Proof which is "Now" due to the fact that "Now's" Existence is based on a Fallacy of Circular Reasoning. Then How much more would you believe in the "Future"?

Take Note: "Future" has no proof yet, and wont have any... ...ever.

If you wont believe in the Past, in the Now and in the Future, coz they are mere words that are not Demonstrable nor Tangible... ...how much more would you believe in God who is Hayah, Howeh and Eheyeh (Past, Present and Future) all at the same time?

If one believe in the Past, Present and Future, then you do believe in God. You're just not sure who he is or what he is and maybe you simply would like to have more proof of him manifest in your life.

If one dont believe in the Past Present and Future, thats a very problematic situation. Right?